The court of public opinion can certainly "judge" Kinew on these charges. Absolutely. He put himself and his past out there, and has to deal with the repercussions.

My issue is the that somehow he is automatically guilty of this "crime" or that he somehow needs to confess. It is ridiculous IMO and indefensible that the FP and its journalists can carry on with these published stories that assume guilt on a person who will never see his day in court on dropped charges. They know better than this, and we should all be smarter than this.

You're not wrong.

Since justice is intact and the truth still unclear, we have to come to the true indicator of public judgment: Trust.

With these question marks abound, can they trust him?

On a more personal level rather than political, he himself does not deserve to have a guilty tag for his accusations. But publicly, that does not earn him any trust. That said, people should be decent to him about that, to some degree.

The bolded are allegations, and IMO cannot and should not be used against Kinew as:

1) the charges were dropped
2) only one side of the story has come to light,3) story so far is from 3rd hand people who were not present when the alleged assault occurred.

Let's stick to the facts, as there are still plenty - and leave the Kinew's public trial and conviction on the dropped assault charges to the FP.

No they aren't. Tara Hart the woman accusing Kinew of assaulting her came forward and spoke to the associated press. It was after she came forward and was berated by certain parties that her family came out and defended her and corroborated her story (as much as someone who wasn't present could).

The court of public opinion can certainly "judge" Kinew on these charges. Absolutely. He put himself and his past out there, and has to deal with the repercussions.

My issue is the that somehow he is automatically guilty of this "crime" or that he somehow needs to confess. It is ridiculous IMO and indefensible that the FP and its journalists can carry on with these published stories that assume guilt on a person who will never see his day in court on dropped charges. They know better than this, and we should all be smarter than this.

I also think it's somewhat ridiculous that the WFP is carrying on about the domestic issue, when Kinew himself admitted he made a mistake and regrets it. What do they really expect him to do?

Personally, I am far more bothered by the discrepancies in his book about the incident with the taxi driver, as compared to what actually came out in a court of law.

Kinew's version of the incident:

"On page 70 of the book, he writes that "the driver caught up with us and pushed me. I turned around and shoved him back. A passing cabbie saw what was happening, stopped his taxi and jumped out to help his fellow driver. He swung and hit me in the face. I grabbed him and swung back.

"We stood in the middle of the street, arms flailing in full-on hockey fight mode. The police showed up and tackled me."

Agreed facts from the Court of Queens Bench:

Court heard Kinew was intoxicated when he caught a cab near Mayfair Avenue, shortly before 5 a.m.

"The accused began to insult the [cab driver] with some racial comments which continued until the driver reached the intersection of Portage Avenue and Fort Street," the Crown told court.

While stopped at a red light, Kinew exited the vehicle, approached the driver's side door window, which was open, and punched the driver in the face.

A passerby yelled out and momentarily interrupted the assault. When the driver exited the cab, Kinew pushed him to the ground and kicked him, court heard.

Police came upon the scene and Kinew attempted to flee. Taken into custody, Kinew declined to discuss the incident.

The victim suffered a small laceration to his elbow and swelling to his face.

No they aren't. Tara Hart the woman accusing Kinew of assaulting her came forward and spoke to the associated press. It was after she came forward and was berated by certain parties that her family came out and defended her and corroborated her story (as much as someone who wasn't present could).

This isn't an international story yet...but it could be.

No cheswick, it was the Canadian Press (company) that interviewed Hart.

Should this story go international though, like Rob Ford was in 2013-14?

It's already national. Wab was on the current this morning apologizing for emotionally hurting the Hart family saying there were "unresolved issues" with the family. He continued to deny the assault. Honestly he reminded me of my ex who gaslighted the fuck out of me. It's not very often that provincial politics in Manitoba get national attention, sadly it's about who the official opposition elected as leader. I get what the NDP were trying to do here. Electing a young, sexy, popular, indigenous man as leader is great for the party image, but he does not deserve this position. I'm not saying he shouldn't be an MLA, just that he is not the right person to lead. The road to hell is paved with good intentions, and this is one of those situations. Maybe if there was more distance with his past and he had a decade of service under his belt, they could sell the changed man story. The reality is for most Manitobans and Canadians, this story is fresh. Does everybody deserve a second chance? Yes, but Wab has had many.

What you or anyone else believe has no bearing on charges that were dropped. There will be no court date, and no presentation of "facts" - on either side.

Melissa Martin's article was ridiculous, as she states the only way to move forward is for Kinew to "come clean" and "confess", etc - this is ridiculous because firstly what is Kinew confessing to? An assault that in the eyes of the justice system never occurred? He is going to confess that he actually committed a crime, even though the charges were dropped? Why would anyone ever do that?

What if his side of the story pins most of the blame on the accuser? Perhaps he doesn't want to start some giant he said/she said tabloid style circus.

It shouldn't be discussed the way it is being discussed because there is no legal basis in any of it. It's just opinions. Not facts. And the facts aren't going to come out. Move on to the charges he actually plead guilty to.

Charges were not dropped. They were stayed. Saying they were dropped implies something altogether different.

A complaint was made, the police investigated and on the strength of that investigation, laid two charges. They were stayed. We dont know why because no one will say and the victim was never informed. She doesnt know either.

The fact the victim is in hiding while Wab is now leader of the NDP is deplorable.

Let's use some common sense. If the victim's allegations were completelt made up, to what end? Why? So she can be attacked and have to go into hiding 14 years later? If someone made those 100% false accusations against you would you shrug them off? Wab is *essentially* calling her a liar without using those words. If someone made up accusations like about me, I'd be going after her with both barrels.

In fact, if she lied, she should have been charged. She was not. In the eyes of the justice department, she was not lying.

Her accounts are supported by other family members. I guess they are all in on it.

She must be in on it with the cab driver Wab viciously attacked too, except he hasnt come forward. The details of that incident are there for everyone to read. Racist slurs. Physical attack. And Wab's parents "helped clean him up".

What did Wab say? Well he left a lot out of that story in his book.

He also made wrote about several other relationships he had where the women left him after arguments and fighting where he admitted he got "too angry". What does that sound like?

Wab's standard for public service is there for everyone to see. When Gord Steeves' wife made an insensitive remark about Aboriginals (in fact she was describing her own fears about people that sound a lot like the person Wab admits he was), Wab demanded Gord step down...based on a comment from his wife.

Charges were not dropped. They were stayed. Saying they were dropped implies something altogether different.
.

"Staying" charges simply means that the Crown has 12 months to decide to reinstate the charges. If they don't (and they never do) the charges are dropped.

So yes, after one year, and certainly after the 10+ years that have gone by since the charges were stayed - you can consider them dropped.

Kinew has an assault conviction on his record and some creative ways to describe in a published book. Let's stick to those facts.

As to the alleged domestic assault - the justice system has already spoken, and dredging up the past isn't going to solve anything, or help anyone of the people involved. This woman may be in hiding, but certainly her family is not helping matters by keeping the FP supplied with juicy front page stories.

"Staying" charges simply means that the Crown has 12 months to decide to reinstate the charges. If they don't (and they never do) the charges are dropped.

So yes, after one year, and certainly after the 10+ years that have gone by since the charges were stayed - you can consider them dropped.

Kinew has an assault conviction on his record and some creative ways to describe in a published book. Let's stick to those facts.

As to the alleged domestic assault - the justice system has already spoken, and dredging up the past isn't going to solve anything, or help anyone of the people involved. This woman may be in hiding, but certainly her family is not helping matters by keeping the FP supplied with juicy front page stories.

You're description of the charges being dropped implies there was no evidence to proceed. Charges get stayed all the time. In domestic situations usually because the victim does not want to take part.

In this case, its been well stated the culture that exists in the community where women are used to the "push & throw" and intimidation to not seek legal remedy.

The charges being stayed are not really relevant to what happened. It either happened or it didnt. Regardless of court proceedings.

Her family (and her) are under no obligation to help out the man who abused her. Seems pretty clear to me her family is angry over the way the victim has been treated, angry over Wab's insistence she's lying and angry over what they believe is his disingenuous "changed man" routine.

They have every right to speak out. To suggest otherwise is to suggest domestic violence should be kept quiet. The victim in this case can do whatever she wants, say what she wants, speak to whomever she wants. Same goes for the people she authorizes to speak on her behalf.

The description Kinew gives in his book in regards to the assault are certainly not "facts."
You do realize that only 25% of victims of domestic violence actually report it to the Police, and of those cases, most do not result in a trial or conviction. Not even by a long shot.
Blame the victim and her family. Good job.

Good grief.

I am going to exit from this conversation. It isn't possible to have a rational discussion.

Blaming the victim??? Come on, the charges were dropped (stayed). Therefore the only facts that are at hand is that in the eyes of the law, no crime was committed.

Again, Kinew has enough proven tarnishes on his background - on the books, convictions, tweets, published works, that we all can discuss without needed to sink down to the pitchfork mob on these other charges. It's getting beyond ridiculous.

They have every right to speak out. To suggest otherwise is to suggest domestic violence should be kept quiet. The victim in this case can do whatever she wants, say what she wants, speak to whomever she wants. Same goes for the people she authorizes to speak on her behalf.

Who said they didn't have the right? However in speaking out they also need to understand the spotlight that will come with it.

Again, Kinew has enough proven tarnishes on his background - on the books, convictions, tweets, published works, that we all can discuss without needed to sink down to the pitchfork mob on these other charges. It's getting beyond ridiculous.

A word of advice.

You may want to check your posting history on this thread. You have brought up the domestic violence issue every chance you get. Have you ever stopped to think that if you quit bringing up Kinew's domestic violence arrest and charges, and stop being such a staunch defender of him, maybe the thread would die down? There is nothing more that needs to be said.

What you or anyone else believe has no bearing on charges that were dropped. There will be no court date, and no presentation of "facts" - on either side.

Melissa Martin's article was ridiculous, as she states the only way to move forward is for Kinew to "come clean" and "confess", etc - this is ridiculous because firstly what is Kinew confessing to? An assault that in the eyes of the justice system never occurred?

Unfortunately the justice system cannot charge a Demon for a crime, "the devil made me do it". That would make Kinew NCR (Not Criminally Responsible) for any act done via his body.

Why can't we humanely "lock up" the Psychos at Selkirk Hosp. like we used to decades ago, to keep the rest of us safe from them? Somewhee along the line someone cried "human rights" and the system let the Psychos. out into the public (early 1990s).

Today I heard my Psycho. housemate reach out for help by callling some sort of support. It seems they told him they can't help him, mainly because he refuses to go on Anti-Psychotic drugs, which could make his situation worse (such as murdering us or someone else his demon(s) tell him to.

Unfortunately the justice system cannot charge a Demon for a crime, "the devil made me do it". That would make Kinew NCR (Not Criminally Responsible) for any act done via his body.

Why can't we humanely "lock up" the Psychos at Selkirk Hosp. like we used to decades ago, to keep the rest of us safe from them? Somewhee along the line someone cried "human rights" and the system let the Psychos. out into the public (early 1990s).

Unfortunately the justice system cannot charge a Demon for a crime, "the devil made me do it". That would make Kinew NCR (Not Criminally Responsible) for any act done via his body.

Why can't we humanely "lock up" the Psychos at Selkirk Hosp. like we used to decades ago, to keep the rest of us safe from them? Somewhee along the line someone cried "human rights" and the system let the Psychos. out into the public (early 1990s).

Today I heard my Psycho. housemate reach out for help by callling some sort of support. It seems they told him they can't help him, mainly because he refuses to go on Anti-Psychotic drugs, which could make his situation worse (such as murdering us or someone else his demon(s) tell him to.

I know from direct family experience that some people with mental health issues could be much better off in an institutional environment than in the general community. It's a complex issue and tax dollars are a big part of the policy decisions. But I guess that is a different forum!